Busted IFR Checkride

Jon Kraus wrote in
:

Funny Mark.... my DE busted his IFR ride on the hold too... He said
hold wasn't even close to being racetrack shaped or anywhere near the
racetrack :-) Like others have said this doesn't mean anything in
the big picture.... Thanks again. JK


When you have a crosswind, the hold will not be a race track pattern. The
outbound should not be parallel to the inbound if there is a crosswind.

Andrew Sarangan wrote in
. 158:

When you have a crosswind, the hold will not be a race track pattern.
The outbound should not be parallel to the inbound if there is a
crosswind.

Why? After the first lap, you should know where the wind is and make
appropriate heading corrections to maintain some semblance of a racetrack
pattern, and you should usually have some idea of the winds, anyway.

In real life, though, nobody cares what the pattern looks like, as long as
you stay in protected airspace. I try to keep it as oval as possible,
though, just out of pride.

--
Regards,

Stan

When you have a crosswind, the hold will not be a race track pattern.
The outbound should not be parallel to the inbound if there is a
crosswind.

Why will[ the hold not be a race track pattern]? After the first lap, you
should know where the wind is


Because the round parts will be different radii. You hold constant rate, but
are blown downwind. So, one half circle is little, the other is big.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Stan Gosnell wrote in
:

Andrew Sarangan wrote in
. 158:

When you have a crosswind, the hold will not be a race track pattern.
The outbound should not be parallel to the inbound if there is a
crosswind.

Why? After the first lap, you should know where the wind is and make
appropriate heading corrections to maintain some semblance of a
racetrack pattern, and you should usually have some idea of the winds,
anyway.

In real life, though, nobody cares what the pattern looks like, as
long as you stay in protected airspace. I try to keep it as oval as
possible, though, just out of pride.



If you have a crosswind, you can't maintain a racetrack shape if you want
to do standard rate turns. That is why we double the wind correction on
the outbound. The goal is to make standard rate turns on both ends of the
holding pattern, not to keep the outbound parallel to the inbound.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:


If you have a crosswind, you can't maintain a racetrack shape if you want
to do standard rate turns. That is why we double the wind correction on
the outbound. The goal is to make standard rate turns on both ends of the
holding pattern, not to keep the outbound parallel to the inbound.

Your collective "we" doesn't include all of us. ;-) If your churning along at
200 or 230 knots, standard rate is useless. It then becomes a 25-degree bank
achieved. In fact, that is what the writer of the holding pattern criteria
presumed, because the criteria were rewritten in 1963 to account for military
and transport jet operations.

Little biddy puddle jumpers have more airspace than they could ever use. ;-)

Andrew Sarangan wrote

If you have a crosswind, you can't maintain a racetrack shape if you
want to do standard rate turns. That is why we double the wind
correction on the outbound. The goal is to make standard rate turns on
both ends of the holding pattern, not to keep the outbound parallel to
the inbound.

Gee...thanks for the explanation Andrew, and to think that for all of
these years, for a one minute pattern, I've been teaching that one
should *triple* the drift on the outbound leg. We taught it that way at
PanAm long before the FAA changed the AIM as follows.

From AIM 5-3-7

(c) Compensate for wind effect primarily by drift correction on the inbound
and outbound legs. When outbound, triple the inbound drift correction to
avoid major turning adjustments; e.g., if correcting left by 8 degrees when
inbound, correct right by 24 degrees when outbound.



Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote in
. 8:

Andrew Sarangan wrote

If you have a crosswind, you can't maintain a racetrack shape if you
want to do standard rate turns. That is why we double the wind
correction on the outbound. The goal is to make standard rate turns
on both ends of the holding pattern, not to keep the outbound
parallel to the inbound.

Gee...thanks for the explanation Andrew, and to think that for all of
these years, for a one minute pattern, I've been teaching that one
should *triple* the drift on the outbound leg. We taught it that way
at PanAm long before the FAA changed the AIM as follows.

From AIM 5-3-7

(c) Compensate for wind effect primarily by drift correction on the
inbound and outbound legs. When outbound, triple the inbound drift
correction to avoid major turning adjustments; e.g., if correcting
left by 8 degrees when inbound, correct right by 24 degrees when
outbound.



Bob Moore


OK, now I'm confused. If you triple the correction, wouldn't the inbound
turn be less than standard rate? What am I missing here?

Andrew Sarangan wrote

OK, now I'm confused. If you triple the correction, wouldn't the inbound
turn be less than standard rate? What am I missing here?

Well...ignoring the turns for the moment, using the same drift
correction for the outbound leg as used on the inbound leg (with
an opposite sign of course) would result in parallel tracks. This
is one times the inbound drift (1x). Now, for a one minute pattern,
there are two standard rate turns, each requiring one minute to
complete. The distance blown off during each of the turns is the
same as one would be blown off during one of the one minute strait
legs, requiring an ammount of drift correction on the outbound leg
for each of the turns equal to the ammount used for the one minute
strait leg. All adds up to be three times (3x) the inbound drift
correction.

Yes, even the old AC 61-27C, Instrument Flying Handbook had it wrong.

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote

Well...Now after spell checking.."amount and straight"

Bob Moore

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:

Andrew Sarangan wrote

OK, now I'm confused. If you triple the correction, wouldn't the inbound
turn be less than standard rate? What am I missing here?

Well...ignoring the turns for the moment, using the same drift
correction for the outbound leg as used on the inbound leg (with
an opposite sign of course) would result in parallel tracks. This
is one times the inbound drift (1x). Now, for a one minute pattern,
there are two standard rate turns, each requiring one minute to
complete. The distance blown off during each of the turns is the
same as one would be blown off during one of the one minute strait
legs, requiring an ammount of drift correction on the outbound leg
for each of the turns equal to the ammount used for the one minute
strait leg. All adds up to be three times (3x) the inbound drift
correction.

Yes, even the old AC 61-27C, Instrument Flying Handbook had it wrong.

Bob Moore

The only problem with that is it assumes that tripling the wind
correction angle triples the drift correction. For small angles, that's
a reasonable approximation (it's saying that sin(x) = x), but it falls
apart for big ones.

In a 90 kt spam can, a direct 25 kt crosswind requires a 15 degree WCA
inbound, which would mean a 45 degree WCA angle outbound. You don't
often see a 25 kt crosswind on the runway, but it's not uncommon at 3000
AGL where you might be holding. A jet holding at 180 kts will need half
the WCA you do at 90 kts.

So, yes, triple is better than double, but even better in a slow
airplane is asking the controller for longer legs! 2 minute legs will
let you fly double the inbound WCA on the outbound leg, and 3 minute
legs will make it even easier. Even easier than that is to ask for 5 or
even 10 DME legs, assuming you're so equipped (gotta love GPS).